UdoR wrote:
That one made me laugh
That’s actually not just a joke. AFAIU one of the reasons for requiring celibacy of clergy was to ensure that gifts and donations would stay in the church rather than be inherited by children.
In any case, the celibacy requirement is not an article of faith and the pope could revoke it with a stroke of a pen.
Airborne_Again wrote:
That’s actually not just a joke. AFAIU one of the reasons for requiring celibacy of clergy was to ensure that gifts and donations would stay in the church rather than be inherited by children.
Indeed. Some people express bewilderment at why the Catholic Church is so keen to dictate what people do with their reproductive systems, but the policy is based on the fairly sound logic of trying to make everyone do what benefits the Church.
OK, maybe this thread goes off the rails a bit, but how can such donations be inherited by children of the clergy? Surely the donations are made to the church, not to persons, no?
aart wrote:
how can such donations be inherited by children of the clergy? Surely the donations are made to the church, not to persons, no?
I would think that 1000+ years ago, that distinction wasn’t very clear. Particularly out in the countryside where there was a single priest with his congregation. Before the celibacy requirement it wasn’t that unusual that the job of being a priest was inherited from father to son.
Airborne_Again wrote:
In any case, the celibacy requirement is not an article of faith and the pope could revoke it with a stroke of a pen.
That is actually not that simple – would be a major debate in the Catholic Church if he tried. Some say that Mt 19,12 is pretty clear about it…
But more seriously: From a branding POV it would be totally devastating for the Catholic Church to revoke this! A Catholic Church without celibacy but with equal rights for women, respect for people with other sexual orientation, etc. already exist. It’s called protestant church.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Some say that Mt 19,12 is pretty clear about it…
Clear as mud…
A Catholic Church without celibacy but with equal rights for women, respect for people with other sexual orientation, etc. already exist. It’s called protestant church.
Actually, there are important differences in faith between the protestant (at least the Lutheran) and the Catholic churches that go way beyond that. Particularly their views on salvation.
UdoR wrote:
policy that money is more important than kids
One must not confuse acts of individuals belonging to a group with its official policy. The policy is clear in Church rules and the Gospels: there’s God (in all three persons), there’s humans, then everything else, in that order.
IN particular for money the policy does place it rather low in the hierarchy, much more so than most other organizations humans have participated in historically.
A different matter is that a number of individuals, members of Catholic Church have indeed circumvented that policy at different times in history. Sometimes even the Pope. That does not necessarily change policy.
A very evident case in the XII-XIII centuries when this misconception happened all too often made the Franciscan Order flourish with the utmost poverty as one of its top goals.
It has been a matter of conflict within Catholic Church also in “recent” times:
We are all aware what has happened with bishop of Limburg or the ousting of the Vatican Bank boss or even the resignation of the prior Pope.
That surely reflects official policy.
There are millions of catholics, hundreds of thousands of priests, and the almost total majority do respect official policy to that effect.
For kids the matter is even more clear than money. In cases of abuse, one must bear in mind that even if it was just one case, it is one too many and in no way tolerable under Catholic- (and , in my view, any decent human-) policy. In fact, in Spain, for those cases where criminal law could not prosecute due to expiry, the Catholic Church has done it under its internal law.
One must however not forget that the intolerable number of cases has been low in relative and statistical terms, and it is thus in no way representative of Church as a whole. As an example, in Germany in the period 2005-2010, 210000 cases of abuse were reported, out of which 94 were related in some way to a Church organization (school, parish or otherwise) or priest. This is a terrible number with horrible individual histories, but nonetheless 0.045% of total reports.
One cannot avoid to recognize that, statistically, the Catholic Church is somewhat overrepresented in the media and in society in general vs the other schools, sports organizations, government entities and the likes which have been involved in the other 99.95% of cases in Germany alone.
While that cannot be a valid justification for a single one of those cases in Church, it does seem to say something about whether one or other of those organizations should be represented as “generally abusive and uncaring of children” vs “money”
Graham wrote:
Some people express bewilderment at why the Catholic Church is so keen to dictate what people do with their reproductive systems, but the policy is based on the fairly sound logic of trying to make everyone do what benefits the Church.
Didn’t Monty Phyton do a great sketch on this in “the meaning of life”?
Antonio wrote:
IN particular for money the policy does place it rather low in the hierarchy, much more so than most other organizations humans have participated in historically.
Sorry, but this is like stating: The Ndragheta is all about the completely legal waste management business and can’t be held responsible if “individuals” are also engaged in criminal activity on the side.
The Catholic Church over its entire existence has been all around (political) power and money at its very core.
Antonio wrote:
One must however not forget that the intolerable number of cases has been low in relative and statistical terms, and it is thus in no way representative of Church as a whole.
That is absolutely true. However, there are two things that are representative for the church as a whole:
- The Catholic Church (and many other churches) pretend they have a superior moral standard – such a high moral standard, that they claim the right to tell other people what they should do and should not do. To be “just about average” yourself does not at all fit to the claim that they are entitled to tell others what is right
- Up until very recently (and in some countries still today) they not only made the impression but they acted in a way that showed they do not take those cases really seriously. They still hold the official position that they are not obliged to work together with legal prosecutors if cases come up. The typical “internal law prosecution” in the Catholic Church for a priest that has abused children is to give him the same job at another place…
Antonio wrote:
it does seem to say something about whether one or other of those organizations should be represented as “generally abusive and uncaring of children”
Absolutely right – it is unfair to say that about the Catholic Church. It is, however, also unfair to say that they live up to higher moral standards than any other organization, club, etc. They therefore should not have more public attention than others – not for child abuse and not for other moral discussions.
If it wasn’t for homophobia and discrimination of females, we should just let them do their thing as we do with any other club.
Malibuflyer wrote:
The Catholic Church (and many other churches) pretend they have a superior moral standard – such a high moral standard, that they claim the right to tell other people what they should do and should not do. To be “just about average” yourself does not at all fit to the claim that they are entitled to tell others what is right
